UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the Appellant should have requested a management evaluation of decision on or before 16 December 2014 and that he did not do so until 3 January 2017. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that the application contesting the decision to recover overpayments was not receivable ratione temporis was correct since the Appellant waited nearly two years until filing his application to the UNDT, which was clearly outside the time limit. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the Appellant’s application against the decision to reject retroactive payment of dependency allowance for his adopted children was not receivable ratione materiae because the Appellant failed to request management evaluation within the time limits provided in Staff Rule 11. 2. UNAT dismissed the...
The Secretary-General appealed. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it found that there was a breach of Mr Elobaid’s due process rights, as Mr Elobaid was correctly apprised of the allegations against him, which could lead to administrative action, and was afforded the opportunity to make representations against the measure taken. UNAT held that UNDT erred in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it assumed that the reprimand originated from Mr Ward, of the Chief Programme Support and Management Services at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who...
UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. UNAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. UNAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant’s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that...
UNAT held that the undisputed facts, the evidence of a credible report, coherent hearsay evidence pointing to a pattern of behaviour, the consistency of the witness statements, the unsatisfactory statement of the staff member, and the inherent probabilities of the situation, taken cumulatively, constituted a clear and convincing concatenation of evidence establishing, with a high degree of probability, that the alleged misconduct in fact occurred. UNAT noted that the Organisation is entitled to and obliged to pursue a severe approach to sexual harassment and that the message, therefore, needs...
UNAT held that the issues relating to the conduct of the first test were of no relevance to the appeal and had no legal consequence because the first test and the proposed selection exercise had been cancelled. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that a selection process may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of that process. UNAT found that UNRWA DT did not err in dismissing the first three grounds of the application. With respect to the second test, UNAT agreed with the finding of UNRWA DT that the Appellant was unable to contest the Agency’s decision to conduct a...
UNAT held that UNDT’s conclusion that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae was correct, since the Appellant had failed to challenge the UNTSO CHRO’s response, the original administrative decision of 6 May 2015, by requesting a management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT held that the UNRWA DT’s finding that, while ASC No. A/04/2010 did not provide a right to Mr Abusondous to receive an AAA, he did have an expectation that the Agency would “properly exercise its discretion to grant an AAA and [would] be fair in its dealings with him”, was correct. UNAT found no fault with the reasoning that the Agency’s justification of the decision not to appoint Mr Abusondous as Officer-in-Charge and not to grant him an AAA, namely that the Agency would not have been able to meet the 120-day maximum period to fill the vacancy, was not a reasonable ground for the denial...
UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the Secretary-General discharged his burden to establish the facts of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence in relation to all the allegations of wrongdoing regarding the special education grants. UNAT held that the evidence proved not only fraud in the form of false accounting, but also the uttering of forged and falsified documents to the Organisation. UNAT held that the staff member’s behaviour constituted serious misconduct by which she enriched herself by approximately USD 50,000 at the expense of the Organisation...
